Inner Peace (Through Superior Firepower) – Episode 026

[Kreistor]

This must be some technicality, because we've seen 2 instances of natural allies turning.

King Saline IV might beg to differ, were he not a head short due to the turning of his natural allies the Gobwins. Duncan Scone may also beg to differ, but currently he is rather happy with his position as FAQ CWL, due to the turning of his natural allies the Western Giants. That word cannot that you use, I do not think it means what you think it means.

The Gobwins... broke their alliance and hit the city.

Nope, didn't Turn to join another Side. They weren't part of GK in the first place, just allies.

Jillian held her sword of to the side and arched her eyebrows at the man. "Yeah... I did come to discuss terms, actually." She lifted her gaze to the solemn face of the Giant standing to the Warlord's right.

"Terms as arranged," she said.

The Giant nodded. "Agreed, Highness."

The Jitterati warlord looked up with sudden panic as his stack broke without his order. To his credit, he understood immediately, said nothing, and bolted for the tower entrance.

Natural Allies fight under contract. Contracts have terms. Why do you think this is an example of "Turning" to join a Capital Side?

For the latecomers... that's specifically the type of "Turning" Whispriand I are discussing. Turning to join a Capital Side ONLY. Other types of "Turning" are not inside the context of this particular discussion. If you think changing your contract to ally with another side is "Turning", then it's not relevant to my discussion with Whispri.

[mortissimus]

My guess for Erfwold is: Lord and Lady is simple a dereferential way to refer to people. Units with "count" or stuff like that are nobles, Kings, Queens, Princes and Princesses are royality.

Yes, it appears to be that way. Or to put it another way, Nobles in Erf matches Stupidworld upper or titled nobility.

To quote wiki

Many nations traditionally had an untitled lower nobility (including, in continental Europe, hereditary knights) in addition to titled nobles

[mortissimus]

Maybe you can promote units to Noble or Royal too, just that we have not seen it?

That is unlikely. If it was possible would not Saline IV have promoted Stanley to Royal or at least Noble, after all those units are better? So no.

(Yes, I am talking to myself here.)

[0beron]

ooooooh, I forgot that it's JILLIAN people refer to as the Wack from FAQ lol. Well, at least it will INCLUDE Jack hehe

[Oberon]

The Gobwins... broke their alliance and hit the city.

Nope, didn't Turn to join another Side. They weren't part of GK in the first place, just allies.

There's no canon to support either just 'breaking their alliance' (although this is said to be unheard of for natural allies) or turning and then turning back. But calling natural allies 'just allies' is a whitewash of the real relationship. No two Sides would ever trust each other enough to have one allow the other to act as guards to the throneroom. In GK the hobgobwins do just that. That's not a relationship which is able to be trivialized as being 'just allies.'

"Terms as arranged," [Jillian] said.
The Giant nodded. "Agreed, Highness."

Natural Allies fight under contract. Contracts have terms. Why do you think this is an example of "Turning" to join a Capital Side?

Maybe because the Western Giants had been natural allies to Jitterati, and are now natural allies of FAQ? This seems to be quite cut and dry: The natural allies turned from Jitterati to FAQ.

Distinguishing the turning of natural allies from the turning of a unit seems like a lot of splitting hairs. Natural allies may not be units proper of a side, but their position is nearly indistinguishable from any unit popped to a side.

[Whispri]

Though I do not think that Jillian's detractors should see this as doom and gloom. Afterall just look at what these text updates managed to do with wanda. Wanda with her fatalist attitude was growing to be rather unlikable in the later parts of the comic, but this prequel story cast a whole new light on her character and made her quite endearing.

Oh ye creatures of the Night! Hear my cry of Woe!

1. Natural Allies cannot form capital sides, and so by extension cannot join a Capital Side. They cannot Turn, and tehrefore are not examples of Barbarians.

Barbarians can form Capital Sides, even Royal Sides, and we have seen Jillian do exactly that. Since Warlords of Capital Sides can Turn, there seems no sense in a Rule that would limit the same person from Turning the day before his Overlord created the Side. One day he can't Turn, and the next he can, because of an act of his Ruler? That's where that pettiness I was talking about comes in.

Oh, and I'll say the same to you as I have said to a lot of people with theories around here. "Plausible" does not equate to "probable". There have been a lot of wild speculations here over the years, and I'm just as guilty of creating some wacky, though not inconsistent ideas. It is important to be able to recognize the difference. Just because an idea fits the current known evidence, and exists only because no evidence that it doesn't exist has been presented, does not mean it should carry weight. It is impossible to write a comic like this where someone can give you the statement "X does not exist" for every possible theory, because theories are infinite. Looking at where such statements should have occurred is important. And the actual answer is on the original character description pages.

And that is found right here:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erfcast.html

Jillian:
Capital: None

Wanda:
Capital: Gobwin Knob.

Sorry, but no. We have known from day one that Wanda is a full fledged member of GK. If she was otherwise, she wouldn't have a Capital in her original description.

... Natural Allies, like Barbarians, are a type of Non-Capital Side, it is against them that Barbarians must surely be balanced, rather than against Capital Sides that already hold every possible advantage. Never has a non-heir/ex-Ruler Barbarian been seen to create a Capital Side. As for your comments on theoretical subordinate Barbarian Warlords, they aren't leading a Side and Rulers can grant Units, for example, the ability to move beyond a single hex, that's one of the powers of a Ruler, to alter the nature of their Units.

Now assuming that Cast Page is still accurate, which is a stretch... if a Hobgobwin allied with Gobwin Knob were in that page without a Capital listed, you might have a point. So yeah, Jillian didn't have a Capital, what of it? She wasn't a member of a long standing alliance with a Capital Side, just a short term anti-Overlord coalition. By that point Wanda had been Stanley's concubine for hundreds of turns.

Natural Allies fight under contract. Contracts have terms. Why do you think this is an example of "Turning" to join a Capital Side?

As do Barbarians, as demonstrated by Jillian and her hired Witch. Why do you think Barbarians behave any differently than other examples of Non-Capital Sides?

The thing is, to any Royal Side, she most emphatically is not the the social equivalent of a Princess. She is rather a jumped up commoner, claiming the titles and airs of those who have the true mandate of the Titans. From the POV of most Royals, that is. Their heightened stats demonstrate to them clearly that the Titans intended them to rule. And who could say that they are wrong?

And then Wanda attuned, and she and Stanley started a holy war over the mandate of the Titans being more valid to an attuned wielder of a Tool than to a Royal. But that's besides the point.

Well yes, but within her own Side, there is no practical difference. And even when dealing with the heretics, she's still the daughter of a Ruler. And who's to say that the daughter of an Overlord doesn't get the same stat boost?

[Raza]

Natural Allies fight under contract. Contracts have terms. Why do you think this is an example of "Turning" to join a Capital Side?

As do Barbarians, as demonstrated by Jillian and her hired Witch. Why do you think Barbarians behave any differently than other examples of Non-Capital Sides?

I'm with Kreistor for once, and what you bring up is a good example of why he's right.

Mercenary work and contractual alliances are different from turning. Turning is a unit declaring loyalty to a new side, and becoming its unit proper. Alliances, which both natural allies and barbarians form, are temporary - they apply to autonomous sides rather than units, and can be revoked by decision rather than tampering with loyalty. When Jillian's group did merc work for the coalition, they allied to them, but they remained barbarians. If they had turned to Jetstone instead they would have been Jetstone units from then on.

Natural allies have, so far, only formed and broken alliances. I wouldn't go so far as to say they cannot turn as individual units - we've seen them belonging to a site proper through decryption, which suggests their psychological mechanics are compatible at least, and I imagine a turnamancer could affect them normally - but it is either atypical to their mindset or we haven't yet seen individual natural units spotlighted enough to get an example thrown our way.

[Kreistor]

The Gobwins... broke their alliance and hit the city.

Nope, didn't Turn to join another Side. They weren't part of GK in the first place, just allies.

There's no canon to support either just 'breaking their alliance' (although this is said to be unheard of for natural allies) or turning and then turning back. But calling natural allies 'just allies' is a whitewash of the real relationship. No two Sides would ever trust each other enough to have one allow the other to act as guards to the throneroom. In GK the hobgobwins do just that. That's not a relationship which is able to be trivialized as being 'just allies.'

"Terms as arranged," [Jillian] said.
The Giant nodded. "Agreed, Highness."

Natural Allies fight under contract. Contracts have terms. Why do you think this is an example of "Turning" to join a Capital Side?

Maybe because the Western Giants had been natural allies to Jitterati, and are now natural allies of FAQ? This seems to be quite cut and dry: The natural allies turned from Jitterati to FAQ.

Distinguishing the turning of natural allies from the turning of a unit seems like a lot of splitting hairs. Natural allies may not be units proper of a side, but their position is nearly indistinguishable from any unit popped to a side.

Oberon, please review my conversation with Whispri and the irrelevance of changing alliance. You're not on point.

[Kreistor]

... Natural Allies, like Barbarians, are a type of Non-Capital Side, it is against them that Barbarians must surely be balanced,

How is such a balance to be measured? Why must they be balanced? Game balance does not hinge on the activities of non-Capital Sides that can't win the game. So long as all the players that can win are treated the same way by all mechanics, there is no imbalance. In Erfworld, only Capital Sides can "win", so they're the players for purposes of balance calculations.

Never has a non-heir/ex-Ruler Barbarian been seen to create a Capital Side.

We have also never seen a popped Barbarian, but we know they pop randomly, too.

But by that standard, no one has ever said Wanda is a Brbarian Ally, have they?

As for your comments on theoretical subordinate Barbarian Warlords, they aren't leading a Side and Rulers can grant Units, for example, the ability to move beyond a single hex, that's one of the powers of a Ruler, to alter the nature of their Units.

Not possible. Units in cities when their Capitals fall do not become Barbarians. All Barbarians are inherently mobile.

Now assuming that Cast Page is still accurate, which is a stretch...

Wow. That would be a massive retcon. Have you found any inaccuracies on the page? If not, no, it's 100% accurate. That it is evidence against your speculation does not make it inaccurate.

if a Hobgobwin allied with Gobwin Knob were in that page without a Capital listed, you might have a point. So yeah, Jillian didn't have a Capital, what of it?

You are proposing Wanda is a Barbarian Ally. Jillian is a known Barbarian Ally. You need to account for the difference in Capital listings.

She wasn't a member of a long standing alliance with a Capital Side, just a short term anti-Overlord coalition.

Now you're speculating that there is a non-described alliance mechanism? I'm sorry, but that has to stop somewhere.

Natural Allies fight under contract. Contracts have terms. Why do you think this is an example of "Turning" to join a Capital Side?

As do Barbarians, as demonstrated by Jillian and her hired Witch. Why do you think Barbarians behave any differently than other examples of Non-Capital Sides?

Capital Side at that point, sorry. Not barbarian. But it's irrelevant anyway. We know Barbarians can ally. We know they can form Capital Sides. This is about whether they can Turn to join a Capital Side on a permanent basis. Cases where they don't are not really relevant.

Well yes, but within her own Side, there is no practical difference. And even when dealing with the heretics, she's still the daughter of a Ruler. And who's to say that the daughter of an Overlord doesn't get the same stat boost?

Parson, in the Klog where he states that Nobles are popped by Royal Sides. And Ansom, where he tells us that Royals can trace descent from the original Rulers chosen by the Titans. Royals don't pop as Barbarians, which tells us some types of units have limited creation mechanisms.

[Balerion]

But the examples of the natural allies also undermine your case that Wanda has completely turned to GK. We have in them units that are technically simply very long term allies, who can switch their allegiance at will, but are considered part of the side. In Parson's klog, they are listed as actually GK units, not as something in another column. If we apply the same standards that you have used to declare Wanda has turned to GK to GK's natural allies, then they have also turned to GK. Since we know for a fact that is not the case, it means you are lacking the evidence that Wanda herself has turned simply based on how she is referred to.

Your entire case that she has actually turned then rests on Stanley, who was only a chief warlord at the time and therefore did not have overlord senses, being able to distinguish her turning from her simply switching alliances as a natural ally can. So basically, we can't actually say anything about Wanda's current status. It is possible that she as an overlord turned (an action without precedent) and it is possible that she has entered into long term alliances with sides (also an action without precedent). Either is possible, and we have no framework for proving one over the other right now.

[Housellama]

Yanno, there's a whole Forum related to Erfworld stuff that isn't directly related to the comic at hand. Maybe we should use that?

Granted, I've been as guilty of this too, but I'm going to pay more attention to that going forward. It'll keep Reaction threads on topic and maybe not grow to 9 pages off-topic monstrosities.

Just a thought.

Edit: Created a new thread in Reactions for this.

[Kreistor]

But the examples of the natural allies also undermine your case that Wanda has completely turned to GK. We have in them units that are technically simply very long term allies, who can switch their allegiance at will, but are considered part of the side. In Parson's klog, they are listed as actually GK units, not as something in another column.

But listed separately on the Stupid Meal for RCC.

If we apply the same standards that you have used to declare Wanda has turned to GK to GK's natural allies, then they have also turned to GK.

I don't have a standard. I have two character descriptions of people you are theorizing are in the same situation, but Rob described differently.

it means you are lacking the evidence that Wanda herself has turned simply based on how she is referred to.

Stanley, "boom. She turned." http://www.erfworld.com/book-2-archive/?px=%2F2010-07-16.png No negotiation of contract, just a decision on Wanda's part.

Your entire case that she has actually turned then rests on Stanley, who was only a chief warlord at the time and therefore did not have overlord senses, being able to distinguish her turning from her simply switching alliances as a natural ally can.

Except that he is describing this after the fact. He may not have had the senses to know at the exact time of her Turning, but he has had thousands of Turns to figure it out since, including discussion with his King. Further, contracts take TWO parties to agree, and are not unilateral. Stanley would have had to sign for her to be on contract. "Terms as agreed," remember? Ansom signing Charlie's contract for alliance.

So basically, we can't actually say anything about Wanda's current status.

Yeah, we can.

[quote=Summer Update 49]That level 6 Jitterati warlord, Duncan Scone, was now her best fighter. Vanna had done some good work to turn him, but the dungeon didn't much interest Jillian.[/quote]

Her best fighter. Turned by a Turnamancer. Not her best ally. On her Side. Turning is not the establishment of a contract. It is joining a Side. Wanda did it in FAQ to join Stanley. He was there. Ossomer did it after Decryption, and it didn't take a contract. Blink and he has new livery.

We do know what Turning is, we have seen it, and we know it's not a contractual arrangement.

It is possible that she as an overlord turned (an action without precedent) and it is possible that she has entered into long term alliances with sides (also an action without precedent). Either is possible, and we have no framework for proving one over the other right now.

Yeah, we do. It's right there on the character sheet. It's right there in Stanley's inherent trust of her, even while he believes she is a danger to him. It's there in her Duty, Obedience, and Loyalty. And it's there in Stanley's words. You could dismiss one, and I'd be okay with it. But dismiss everything? Sorry, no. There is too much evidence to dismiss everything.

[Balerion]

But listed separately on the Stupid Meal for RCC.

Irrelevant to current discussion. YOu are attempting to establish Wanda as thoroughly on the GK side, not an ally. To do this you cited evidence where she is listed as a GK unit. The fact that natural allies, who we know for a fact are not actually GK units, are also listed as GK units at various times means your evidence is inconclusive, as we can see a case where a known ally was referred to in the same way.

I don't have a standard. I have two character descriptions of people you are theorizing are in the same situation, but Rob described differently.

I feel like you missed my point there... it was essentially that the qualifications you have used to say Wanda has definitively turned applied to the natural allies would mean they also had turned. Since we know that is not the case, we can conclude your evidence is not definitive.

Stanley, "boom. She turned." http://www.erfworld.com/book-2-archive/?px=%2F2010-07-16.png No negotiation of contract, just a decision on Wanda's part.

We have no idea how natural allies and so forth can turn/break contract. There was no contract signing for Jillian with the giants; they just said "as agreed?" and nodded. It was the decision then and there that did it, making it look exactly like turning. Contracts are only necessary if one side demands something of another; Wanda joining without condition would likely not require negotiation.

Except that he is describing this after the fact. He may not have had the senses to know at the exact time of her Turning, but he has had thousands of Turns to figure it out since, including discussion with his King. Further, contracts take TWO parties to agree, and are not unilateral. Stanley would have had to sign for her to be on contract. "Terms as agreed," remember? Ansom signing Charlie's contract for alliance.

Hardly thousands. The timeline is iffy, but I feel very confident saying under 1k turns. And actually, i realize now that Wanda did negotiate a contract with him when telling him about Faq; it was a pretty damn simple one, but there was a prior agreement there (which she planned to renege on). So . Also, him worrying about Wanda being out there conquering and rivaling him in power makes a ton more sense if he has a legitimate reason to worry about her allegiance, as opposed to him just having ego problems. And describing after the fact is irrelevant if, as he did with how his Arkenhammer works, he just went "meh, whatever" and didn't worry about the details.

Yeah, we can.

[quote=Summer Update 49]That level 6 Jitterati warlord, Duncan Scone, was now her best fighter. Vanna had done some good work to turn him, but the dungeon didn't much interest Jillian.

Her best fighter. Turned by a Turnamancer. Not her best ally. On her Side. Turning is not the establishment of a contract. It is joining a Side. Wanda did it in FAQ to join Stanley. He was there. Ossomer did it after Decryption, and it didn't take a contract. Blink and he has new livery.

We do know what Turning is, we have seen it, and we know it's not a contractual arrangement.[/quote]

Agree entirely. And my entire point is that with available evidence, we don't know which Wanda has done. Imagine how the change of sides of the mountain giants looks to a warlord on the walls; boom, suddenly they are on a new side. The appearance of turning vs shifting allegiance is almost identical to anyone not privy to the actual negotiation.

Yeah, we do. It's right there on the character sheet. It's right there in Stanley's inherent trust of her, even while he believes she is a danger to him. It's there in her Duty, Obedience, and Loyalty. And it's there in Stanley's words. You could dismiss one, and I'd be okay with it. But dismiss everything? Sorry, no. There is too much evidence to dismiss everything.

Character sheet addressed. Stanley's feelings on Wanda addressed. And to speak of her Loyalty, its amazing that she is able to be Loyal to Fate magic, not her Overlord. Haven't actually heard of another unit like that. Would think that turning would require that loyalty to shift almost, since loyalty is the stat called into question by a Turned unit. And Stanley is an incompetent when it comes to how the world works frankly.

All of those reasons are far from airtight. Does it mean you are not right? no. But do you have the evidence to claim other theories are wrong? also no.

Housellama:
We could move the discussion to the other forum, but a) it's not like anyone else is using this thread at this point and b) that would be work

[Kreistor]

its amazing that she is able to be Loyal to Fate magic, not her Overlord.

You have. Ossomer and his Honour.

[Kreistor]

Irrelevant to current discussion. YOu are attempting to establish Wanda as thoroughly on the GK side, not an ally. To do this you cited evidence where she is listed as a GK unit. The fact that natural allies, who we know for a fact are not actually GK units, are also listed as GK units at various times means your evidence is inconclusive, as we can see a case where a known ally was referred to in the same way.

Did you read the comic that was in? That doesn't list GK units. It lists "Forces inside Gobwin Knob." Natural Allies can be on that list without being GK units.

I feel like you missed my point there... it was essentially that the qualifications you have used to say Wanda has definitively turned applied to the natural allies would mean they also had turned.

Nope. The list is not what you think it is, and so your logic does not track.

Stanley, "boom. She turned." http://www.erfworld.com/book-2-archive/?px=%2F2010-07-16.png No negotiation of contract, just a decision on Wanda's part.

We have no idea how natural allies and so forth can turn/break contract. There was no contract signing for Jillian with the giants; they just said "as agreed?" and nodded. It was the decision then and there that did it, making it look exactly like turning. Contracts are only necessary if one side demands something of another; Wanda joining without condition would likely not require negotiation.

We saw them break contract. We have heard contracts broken at least three times --Giants, Gobwins, Quisling and Frenemy. It's a matter of will alone. It is not restricted by Turn, and can be unilateral.

Contracts have never been shown to be unilateral, but Ossomer's Turning was. Ergo, since Stanley mentions no such contract but indcates the Turning was a surprise, she must have Turned to join his Side.

It's pretty straight forward. But you know, my parents were married. That I don't have the marriage contract in hand doesn't make me doubt that in any way. You can cling to faint hope denials, but seriously, your standards are beyond what a reasonable author would ever provide you with.

Hardly thousands. The timeline is iffy, but I feel very confident saying under 1k turns.

The gap between Book 1 and 2 is 55 turns. From razing FAQ, Stnaley had at least be made Ruler, then launch a campaign of expansion, then lose 14 cities, all while accumulating 500000 schmuckers. I don't think thousands is out of range, personally.

And actually, i realize now that Wanda did negotiate a contract with him when telling him about Faq; it was a pretty damn simple one, but there was a prior agreement there (which she planned to renege on).

Making a promise isn't exactly making a contract, but I suppose it's close enough. But I'm surprised that you're accepting Stnaley as a source for evidence of a contract, but rejecting him as evidence of the effect of Turning. Seems a double standard to me, especially because both events are in the same Text Page.

Oh, and Wanda didn't renege, she came through with her part. She made Stanley's part unnecessary by Turning.

So . Also, him worrying about Wanda being out there conquering and rivaling him in power makes a ton more sense if he has a legitimate reason to worry about her allegiance, as opposed to him just having ego problems. And describing after the fact is irrelevant if, as he did with how his Arkenhammer works, he just went "meh, whatever" and didn't worry about the details.

No one's description is irrelevant unless it's not on point. The quality may be low, but it's direct evidence.

Agree entirely. And my entire point is that with available evidence, we don't know which Wanda has done.

We have one full claim of Turning, a character page that identifies her Side, etc. What you do not have is a single reference to her being barbarian, a single statement about a contract, any sign of her receiving schmuckers in payment like Jillian receives to fund her Brbarian Mercenary Side, or one shred of positive evidence from Stanley that he is worrying about her breaking Alliance. A ton of evidence you think you can dismiss on one side, and total lack of positive evidence and only a lack of negative evidence on the other.

Yeah, there's no balance there. We do know exactly Wanda's situation, and it excludes being Barbarian.

[Oberon]

And then Wanda attuned, and she and Stanley started a holy war over the mandate of the Titans being more valid to an attuned wielder of a Tool than to a Royal. But that's besides the point.

Well yes, but within her own Side, there is no practical difference.

So now you're reducing it to two sides both claiming that they have it right. Which is true, but not for reasons of nobility, which is the topic of discussion. GK isn't claiming that they are royals because they have two attuned 'Tool wielders, they are claiming that being an attuned 'Tool wielder makes you the superior of a royal. The issue isn't royal titles, but whose Titanic mandate is more legitimate.

And who's to say that the daughter of an Overlord doesn't get the same stat boost?

Canon, that's who. Royals are specifically stated to have higher stats. Nowhere does it say that "royals and the daughters of Overlords have higher stats."

[Oberon]

Yanno, there's a whole Forum related to Erfworld stuff that isn't directly related to the comic at hand. Maybe we should use that?

Granted, I've been as guilty of this too, but I'm going to pay more attention to that going forward. It'll keep Reaction threads on topic and maybe not grow to 9 pages off-topic monstrosities.

You'd be breaking a tradition which is as old as this comic.

[Oberon]

Mercenary work and contractual alliances are different from turning. Turning is a unit declaring loyalty to a new side, and becoming its unit proper. Alliances, which both natural allies and barbarians form, are temporary - they apply to autonomous sides rather than units, and can be revoked by decision rather than tampering with loyalty. When Jillian's group did merc work for the coalition, they allied to them, but they remained barbarians. If they had turned to Jetstone instead they would have been Jetstone units from then on.

Natural allies have, so far, only formed and broken alliances. I wouldn't go so far as to say they cannot turn as individual units - we've seen them belonging to a site proper through decryption, which suggests their psychological mechanics are compatible at least, and I imagine a turnamancer could affect them normally - but it is either atypical to their mindset or we haven't yet seen individual natural units spotlighted enough to get an example thrown our way.

I'd agree that natural allies turn as a group (with magic trumping, as always). But I'll disagree that natural allies cannot be prompted to break alliance/turn by "tampering with loyalty." We have canon that the gobwins breaking alliance with GK was remarkable. There is also a strong indication that Charlie was involved in the turning of the Western Giants. This hints at "tampering with loyalty" as a cause of their turning.

What do you define as being a "unit proper?" We see a lot of the things that I'd call being a "unit proper" applied to natural allies. We have canon that natural allies are treated, for all intents and purposes, as units of the Side. Parson didn't need to consult with Vurp before promoting the hobgobwins to heavies, for example. He did it in the exact same manner as he promoted himself a field unit, with a simple declaration. I doubt that the CWL of a Side in an alliance with another Side could similarly promote units of that allied Side.

I've earlier pointed out that natual allies are given a whole lot more trust and responsibility, including guarding the GK throne room... Do you let merely allied units guard your throne room? Not if you want to continue as a Side, you don't! Hell, Stanley in his bid to make FAQ his new capitol brought only dwagons, Jack, and the KISS, who were all hobgobwins. Were there any doubts about natural allies Stanley would have brought his highest level GK units instead. There can be no doubt: The relationship of a Side to its natural allies is far, far closer than the alliance between two Sides.

And on another topic: Wanda is a GK unit. Get over it.

[Keighvin1]

I would say that people are conflating titles and designations. Field unit or garrison unit is a designation not a title, as is Warlord or Chief Warlord. Titles would be count, earl or whatever, and we have not seen any sign that they confer any particular stats or abilities in and of themselves.

[Keighvin1]

But we've seen no evidence that someone can be declared to be Royal, so I think that there is a difference between the specials of being Royal or caster for that matter, and things like Chief Warlord.

Also, of more directly talk about your post, as I said, Royal is a special, while being a Count or a Duke would be a title, which probably has no effect on stats.